9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 17-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 29.8.2013 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 189/Chd/2007, relating to the assessment year 1997-98, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the disallowance of business l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the disallowance of deduction of ₹ 29,42,11,642/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) ignoring the fact that validity of retrospective amendment in assessee's own case is pending admitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India? v) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law? 2. This Court vide order dated 13.8.2014 held that questions No.(iii) and (iv) did not arise for consideration as learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the said questions stand covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 3241 of 1999 (Punjab State Cooperative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Union of India and others) . On 13.8.2014, learned counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been made under the head physical balance paddy from 186.32 crores to 181.24 crores in trading account of paddy. It was explained that the difference of paddy stock is shown as physically available but actually damaged and not fit for milling. The stock was valued at zero in view of observation of audit vide report/certificate dated 29.10.1997 (Annexure A-5). The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27.3.2000 (Annexure A-1) made an addition of ₹ 5,08,02,633/-. Against the second issue before the Assessing Officer regarding deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, the SLP has been accepted by the Supreme Court vide order dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure A-4). Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
